The Pastor Search Committee

Formerly called the "pulpit committee," is the body now called the "pastor search committee" always really qualified to search for a new pastor, and do they really do enough research before making a decision?

There were definitely some questions regarding conflicts of interest with Bellevue's last pastor search committee.

Related articles:

Pastor searches packed with perils

INTEGRITY IN MINISTRY: NO HIDDEN SKELETONS IN YOUR CLOSET

Pastoral Search Questions

The Pastor Search Process

This illustrates how monumental the task must seem!

Pastor Search Committee Workbook

Steve Gaines addresses the congregation of Gardendale's FBC July 10, 2005 regarding the call to Bellevue in his "Didn't I tick you guys off?" speech. Summary here.

Thanks to "amazed" for this topic suggestion.

An Anonymous Letter

This week Bellevue deacons, some members of the choir, members of Joe Jernigan's class, and perhaps others received this anonymous letter.

While I think if you're going to send a letter to someone by mail you should have the courage to sign your name, that's really not the issue here. I have no idea at all who wrote it. I can't even guess based upon the writing style, and besides, it's likely someone I don't know. But instead of criticizing the author for not signing his or her name or for sending it in the first place, why not critique the content of the letter itself? As someone so appropriately pointed out, we don't know who wrote the book of Hebrews either, but that doesn't diminish the value of what it says.
The sermon archives can be accessed here.

"I'm going to teach Bellevue to be a praying church!"

What thoughts crossed your mind when you heard Steve Gaines utter these words from the pulpit in 2005?

In 2005 Bellevue's Annual Love Offering was earmarked for a new prayer chapel.

2005 Love Offering

Since that time, little has been said about a prayer chapel. Some who saw the plans claimed there was a prayer labyrinth in the plans. I've been trying for a long time to confirm this and only recently acquired what appears to be an architect's rendering of the Bellevue Prayer Chapel.

Prayer Chapel Plans

While the plan appears to include a labyrinth, upon closer inspection you can see, at least in these plans, it's really a circular room with three concentric rows of pews and kneeling benches. There are four doors off the main circular corridor leading to this room, and there's space in the center for a sculpture or some other focal point. While not a labyrinth per se, it does seem to have been inspired by the same.

Others who claim to have seen the plans have said the plans they saw specifically included a "prayer labyrinth" which was labeled as such, so perhaps it was removed from the original plans or there were more than one set of plans made.

However, the idea of a separate prayer chapel, especially in light of the recent budget shortfalls, begs a number of questions.

1. Why does Bellevue need a whole separate building devoted to "prayer"? We already have a 7500-seat auditorium that's open during the day as well as a chapel. Why the need to go somewhere special to pray?

2. Would the prayer chapel be open 24/7? If so, how safe could this be?

3. Who will "man" it? Paid or volunteer staff? (There don't appear to be any offices in this particular plan.)

4. There's a large 100-seat classroom/auditorium at the rear of the building. Again, Bellevue already has a whole building full of classrooms. Why spend money on more classroom space?

And speaking of prayer, here are the Personal Prayer Guide and the first two "assignments" for the "Pastor's Pit Crew," the children's prayer ministry that was begun by the new Director of Prayer. Is this what Steve Gaines meant when he said he was going to teach Bellevue to be a "praying church"?

Personal Prayer Guide

Assignment 1

Assignment 2

Sign It or Yer Out!

At a recent coaches' meeting BBC's volunteer coaches were given the following documents to fill out and sign and told that it would be mandatory if they wished to continue coaching.

The first document includes the Basic Application, the Leadership Covenant, a Background Information sheet, and a Volunteer Authorization/Consent & Release form. It is obvious from the wording of the "Leadership Covenant" that it was written for use with Sunday School teachers and other workers.

The second document includes the Coaches Covenant and a sheet concerning Biblical Peacemaking.

Finally, attached was a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Can we assume this means there will be credit checks, too?

In this day and age I don't think anyone who's going to work with minors should object to a criminal background check, but the "loyalty oath" and checking members' giving records is too much. The latter has already been happening for some time. People have already been "called on the carpet" for not giving as much as Steve Gaines thought they should. I wonder if it's ever occurred to him that some people drop cash in the collection plate. So how does he know people aren't tithing 10%? And even if he knows how much someone gives, how does he know how much someone makes? They've got your Social Security number and a signed release to do what? Check with your bank?

Of all the red flags that were raised as I read through these documents (and they were legion), the one that stood out the most was this one:

"I waive any right that I may have to inspect references provided on my behalf."

So if a background check shows something in someone's past that is questionable, and the person questions it, he is waiving his right to ever see the information? Think about the implications of that!

Recent numbers I saw revealed that the number of Sunday School classes at BBC for 8th through 12th graders for the coming year has been reduced from 126 to 75. That's a decrease of 40% and a loss of 102 teachers (two per class). At that time they were still short 30 teachers or about 20% of the number needed. Perhaps if this is accurate, there has been a similar reduction in the number of youth participating in sports. So maybe by requiring the coaches to sign these covenants and other agreements they're weeding out the "dissenters" while reducing the staff to the actual number of coaches needed. It would certainly ensure that only the "loyal" remain.

This comment was left by "junkster" in this thread and deserves highlighting:

From the BBC Volunteer Application, last page (Volunteer Authorization/Consent & Release):

I FURTHER AUTHORIZE ALL GOVERNMENTAL, LAW ENFORCEMENT, LICENSE AND RECORD-KEEPING AGENCIES AND ANY OTHER SOURCE TO PROVIDE ALL INFORMATION REQUESTED WITH RESPECT TO MY BACKGROUND, INCLUDING CRIMINAL RECORDS, TO BELLEVUE BAPTIST CHURCH AND/OR ITS AGENT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROTECT MY MINISTRY AND/OR BLUE LINE INVESTIGATION.

Note the words "record keeping agencies and any other source." Signing this form authorizes BBC to do a credit/financial check. From such checks it is easy to determine one's income, which can then be used to check tithing records (assuming donations are not given anonymously, which they usually aren't, so people can claim them as charitable donations on their tax deductions.)

But even scarier is that signing this would authorize BBC to collect background information from any source, including, in theory, your school records, traffic tickets, video rentals, library records, medical history, psychological/psychiatric history, etc. I doubt that just because I signed a church document my doctors would share my medical records with my church without checking with me first, but my point is that, legally speaking, by signing that document I'd be authorizing pretty much anything. It would not be wise or prudent to sign that sort of release, for a church or for anyone.

Sunday School teachers, staff members, ushers, choir and orchestra members, and... déjà vu, deacons... all beware. Your day is coming! Choose you this day whom you will serve!

Code of Silence

From StopBaptistPredators.org comes this interesting article about the failure on the part of the leadership of First Baptist Atlanta to inform the congregation that a prior children's minister who had worked at their church for 19 years had sexually abused children while on staff at at least one Texas church. While there is no evidence that anyone at FBCA knew about this man's past while he was on staff, the question is, why didn't they inform the congregation once they did know? Imagine how many children this man was in contact with during those 19 years!

Yet when three representatives of S.N.A.P. tried to pass out flyers to congregants leaving the Atlanta church one Sunday, security guards tried to run them off. It's not known how much of a background check, if any, the staff of FBCA did on Tommy Gilmore before hiring him, but with the "code of silence" so prevalent in the SBC and other denominations, it's doubtful a routine background check would have turned up anything. But people in Texas knew. Yet they said nothing.

Read more about Tommy Gilmore and his trail of victims here.

It's the "spirit" of the thing...

This is a continuation of the previous thread.

On Sunday, November 5, 2006, there was a marathon BBC deacons' meeting that started in the afternoon, recessed for the evening service (which was followed by the second "information meeting" where we were told how the deacons had "reviewed" the credit card receipts and determined that the pastor had done nothing wrong), then resumed after the service and didn't end until around 11:00 p.m.

Here is a clarification of what transpired during this meeting and afterwards which resulted in the deacon loyalty oath:

1. Near the end of the approximately 6-hour meeting, an idea (not a formal motion) was proposed which referenced supporting the pastor. This was thought by many deacons to simply mean "support" as in prayer, service to the body, etc., not blindly "swallowing and following" the pastor no matter what and certainly not agreeing to signing a statement that, to many members, had all the appearance of pledging an oath to a man. In any case, it was this idea regarding support of the pastor which was passed unanimously (meaning there were no dissenting votes) by those who remained in the meeting. As one deacon put it, after spending nearly six hours in that emotionally-charged, grueling, frustrating, heart-wrenching meeting, he would have agreed to almost anything just so the meeting could be adjourned.

2. A few days later the deacon body received an e-mail containing the "loyalty oath" as reprinted in the previous topic heading. For many deacons, this motion hardly resembled the simple "support" motion voted on in the meeting, and all the deacons were being required to sign it. Yet no one could remember that motion being read word for word at the meeting. However, deacon chairman Chuck Taylor stated in his e-mail that all who were present unanimously approved this motion.

3. It was later learned from some of the deacon officers that the final wording of the motion was drafted after the meeting. Apparently, the deacons' meeting was taped and the opinions and viewpoints expressed by certain deacons that evening were used as a basis for the final wording of the motion. Those supporting the motion claimed this represented the "spirit" of the original motion that was voted on in the meeting. This is where a number of deacons disagreed, and they did not sign the oath. In fact, only about 80 of the 180-plus deacons signed it. Many serious concerns had been expressed during the meeting, and it was felt these were completely ignored by those who drafted this new motion.

4. Finally, Chuck Taylor announced that the deacon officers had decided not to bring the motion to the congregation that following Sunday but to postpone it until a later time. By the way, Mr. Taylor, it's been over 8 months now, and we're still waiting....

Questions to ask:

1. Why was the wording of the motion finalized after the meeting and then claimed in an e-mail sent to the deacons that it was unanimously approved at the earlier meeting of the deacon body? Should not this finalized version of the motion have been brought back to the deacon body for discussion and a proper vote?

2. Was the objective to try and intimidate the deacons who had serious concerns about various issues into signing a document that was considered by many to be a clear violation of Scripture?

3. What authority did the officers have to postpone a motion they claimed had been voted on unanimously by all the deacons (we know it wasn't)? What's the point of voting on motions at deacons' meetings if the officers can rewrite or postpone them later?

4. What was the real reason the officers decided to postpone the motion? Was it because of the positive feedback taking place between the Communications Committee and various groups and individuals in the church as they claimed, or was there another reason?

5. Who all was involved in drafting the loyalty oath?

Concerned members are encouraged to contact deacons who remained until the end of this meeting to see if their version of these events matches those here.

Serving the Body or Serving Steve Gaines?

It's deacon nomination time again, and the qualifications have been outlined in this insert from the July 1st Bellevue Today.

It seems a few things have been added to the Scriptural qualifications -- such as adherence to the BF&M 2000 (which our pastor had a large role in penning) and "lifting up the hands of the pastor," the latter being a variation of the wording in the infamous "deacon loyalty oath" that apparently died on the vine. That letter, which all the deacons were requested (required?) to sign, but which many refused, read as follows:

Brothers,

At the conclusion of our Deacons meeting that followed the evening service, all who were present unanimously approved the following motion:

"The 2006 active Deacon Body of Bellevue Baptist Church met November 5th after the evening service and unanimously approved the following motion. We the active Deacon Body of Bellevue Baptist Church wish to convey to our Church family our affirmation of Dr. Steve Gaines as God’s appointed and God’s anointed Pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church. We commit ourselves before God and our Church family to serve with loyalty under his leadership and to free him up to do the work to which God has called him to do. We publicly demonstrate our loyalty to Pastor Gaines by signing our name to this motion and standing before the Church congregation in each of the morning worship services on November 19, 2006."

Over the next few days, each Vice Chairman will be calling the men in their group to go over the motion and answer any questions. The motion requires each Deacon to sign his name to the motion indicating his public approval of the motion, so please go to the Events Registration Center to sign it. If you have any reservations in signing this motion, please discuss it with your Vice Chairman. I want to reiterate that every Deacon that was present in the Deacons meeting following the service unanimously approved this motion, with the understanding they were to sign it and to stand before the congregation on November 19th. Our congregation needs to know where the Deacons stand during these challenging days.

Chuck

Steve Gaines has stated that he is not accountable to the deacon body. Therefore, it appears "service," as outlined in these qualifications, is a one-way street. We have many fine men serving as deacons, and certainly not all bow to the "demands" of the pastor, but some do.

You may recall the letter from Charles and Pam Gremillion to the deacons and some of the deacons' responses.


Now the "Pastor's Pit Crew," a group of children who have volunteered to pray for the pastor, have received their first assignment. Praying for the pastor is something we all should do. That's not the point. However, maybe it's "just me," but this sounds a little too much like loyalty to a man.